Re: point 6.3, I think the commentary is right to deny that the following sutta extract...SN 35.95: Malunkyaputta Suttahttp://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"Then, Malunkyaputta, with regard to phenomena to be seen, heard, sensed, or cognized: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Malunkyaputta, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
... has anything whatsoever to do with an intermediate state. This is simply referring to the absence of I-making.
Or as Walshe translates it...
"Well then, Maalu"nkyaputta, in things seen, heard, sensed,1 cognized: in the seen there will only be the seen, in the heard only the heard, in the sensed only the sensed, in the cognized only the cognized... Then, Maalu"nkyaputta, there will be no 'thereby' for you.2 Having no 'thereby' you have no 'there.'3 Having no 'there,' Maalu"nkyaputta, there is for you neither this world, nor the next, nor anywhere in between.4 That in itself is the end of suffering."
1. Muta: i.e., smelt, tasted or touched.
2. This is almost impossible to translate adequately. There is no agent, i.e., no "seer," "feeler," "knower." "There will be no 'thereby' whereby one will be lustful, hating or deluded (SA [SN commentary])."
3. If there is no agent (i.e., "self"), then there is nowhere such an agent can be located. "You will have no 'there'": you will not be bound "there" or attached "there," i.e., with regard to the seen, heard, sensed and cognized (SA).
4. "You will realize that nothing is really reborn."
Generally speaking, I would be really careful about instances of "becoming" or "existence" being misinterpreted as rebirth... consulting a few different translations is always beneficial.
I do agree though with the thrust of the article, in that the suttas allow much more scope for an intermediate state than do the commentaries and Abhidhamma.
I'm not sure if they were the kind of pondering you were looking for or not.